We don’t know whether Mr. Hastert likes to have sex with little boys, or whether he likes black boys or latino boys in addition to white boys. We do know he enjoys watching boys roll around on the ground together, and used to give boys instructions as to how to cradle another boy in their arms.

Someone may have documented the full extent of his pedophilia- there may even be a series of films of Mr. Hastert having sexual intercourse with boys- I would stress that at this point we don’t know for sure whether any such videotapes exist or whether Mr. Hastert might have destroyed them.

We don’t know whether Mr. Hastert likes to have sex with little boys, or whether he likes black boys or latino boys in addition to white boys. We do know he enjoys watching boys roll around on the ground together, and used to give boys instructions as to how to cradle another boy in their arms.

Someone may have documented the full extent of his pedophilia- there may even be a series of films of Mr. Hastert having sexual intercourse with boys- I would stress that at this point we don’t know for sure whether any such videotapes exist or whether Mr. Hastert might have destroyed them.

I’ll tell you what we don’t know. We don’t actually know where Reverend Moon’s money comes from, which has funded (to the tune of $2-$3 billion) the forum for stories like this one in the Washington Times and UPI.

We do know that some of it comes from ripping off old ladies in Japan, as the Japanese Supreme Court ruled in 1997.

And Reverend Moon’s a guy who really does have past associations with drug cartels.

We don’t know whether Mr. Hastert likes to have sex with little boys, or whether he likes black boys or latino boys in addition to white boys. We do know he enjoys watching boys roll around on the ground together, and used to give boys instructions as to how to cradle another boy in their arms.

Someone may have documented the full extent of his pedophilia- there may even be a series of films of Mr. Hastert having sexual intercourse with boys- I would stress that at this point we don’t know for sure whether any such videotapes exist or whether Mr. Hastert might have destroyed them.

We don’t know whether Mr. Hastert likes to have sex with little boys, or whether he likes black boys or latino boys in addition to white boys. We do know he enjoys watching boys roll around on the ground together, and used to give boys instructions as to how to cradle another boy in their arms.

Someone may have documented the full extent of his pedophilia- there may even be a series of films of Mr. Hastert having sexual intercourse with boys- I would stress that at this point we don’t know for sure whether any such videotapes exist or whether Mr. Hastert might have destroyed them.

We don’t know whether Mr. Hastert likes to have sex with little boys, or whether he likes black boys or latino boys in addition to white boys. We do know he enjoys watching boys roll around on the ground together, and used to give boys instructions as to how to cradle another boy in their arms.

Someone may have documented the full extent of his pedophilia- there may even be a series of films of Mr. Hastert having sexual intercourse with boys- I would stress that at this point we don’t know for sure whether any such videotapes exist or whether Mr. Hastert might have destroyed them.

There’s been a lot of shit out there, but this really is a new low. There really appears to be no brake at all on the careening of the Republican political machine towards the abyss of expedient lies and immoral insinuations. This is the FUCKING Speaker of the House, for god’s sake. If it was Bob Dornan or some other fool off his meds, that would be one thing, but this is a person where the dignity of his office ought to mean something.

We don’t know whether Mr. Hastert likes to have sex with little boys, or whether he likes black boys or latino boys in addition to white boys. We do know he enjoys watching boys roll around on the ground together, and used to give boys instructions as to how to cradle another boy in their arms.

Someone may have documented the full extent of his pedophilia- there may even be a series of films of Mr. Hastert having sexual intercourse with boys- I would stress that at this point we don’t know for sure whether any such videotapes exist or whether Mr. Hastert might have destroyed them.

There’s a serious policy issue here. Everyone who complains about British libel laws, and celebrates New York Times v. Sullivan needs to ask themselves whether this kind of thing is compatible with ordered liberty.

I realize Soros is a public figure, but doesn’t this seem obviously slanderous? He should sue Hastert tomorrow. Saying “if” and “I don’t know” surely can’t cover his ass. Of course, Chris Wallace’s response was a disgrace, too. Might a reasonable response not have been: “Well, Mr. Speaker, we know he made at least a billion dollars in 1992 wagering against the British pound, and that he’s been one of the most successful investors in history?”

Getting money from the drug cartel is nothing compare to his other transgressions:

…
TONY BLANKLEY [editor of the “WASHINGTON TIMES”]: He [Soros] said that he has no moral responsibility for the consequences of his financial actions. He is a self-admitted atheist. He was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the holocaust.
…partial transcript from “HANNITY & COLMES”, June 3, 2004

A technical point really, but if Soros was getting money from the drug cartels surely he wouldn’t be in favor of eliminating the profit margins associated with illegal drugs in America. More proof that Hastert’s a sad fool.

Under British libel law, if a thing is said to be alledged then it is said. So Hastert just libelled Soros.

As for ‘costing’ the UK government $1 billion, I think the reverse is true. The cost to the UK of staying in the ERM at a ridiculous exchange rate chosen to make the UK Tory party look good was more than a billion, more even than the money Lamont lost trying to prop up the pound.

What Hastert does not mention here is that when Soros came out against the drug laws there was Milton Freedman sitting right next to him saying ‘nobody in the political process can raise these issues so we have to’. Soros has made clear that his opposition to the drug laws is precisely because opponents are attacked in the manner that Hastert attacked him.

Three things I learned from reading Crooked Timber today: 1) If the establishment makes unsubstantiated accusations against a liberal rich white dude (cf. “Speaker of the House…”), it’s ok to mock the establishment. 2) If the establishment makes unsubstantiated accusations against a Muslim (cf. “A Little More on Tariq Ramadan”), “it’s absolutely possible that there is good reason to suspect Ramadan.” 3) To debate the difference between anti-Zionist and anti-Semite is “a ludicrous point” (cf. “Privatised humanitarian interventions?”). It all fits into a neat little package!

5/3/02 WASHINGTON – (AP) — Before becoming House speaker, Rep. Dennis Hastert told Colombian military officers that he was ”sick and tired” of human rights considerations controlling U.S. anti-drug aid, according to a newly declassified government document

We don’t know what happens to the research data when our Vice President undergoes alien experimentation at those secured, undisclosed locations. For that matter, we don’t know if the aliens are from our own galaxy, or if they are alien aliens (therefore exponentially more suspicious)from a galaxy far, far away.

We don’t know if GWB is STILL taking cocaine, we likewise don’t know the name of his dealer or who it is in the white house that buys the stuff from the dealer and gives it to him. Has congress looked into this? NO!

George Soros is a mamber of the same world-spanning conspiracy as 9/11 pilot Mohammed Atta, former CIA director George Tenet, and Camobodian hitman Lon Nol, and Burmese prime minister U Nu, among others. Never trust a palindrome.

“A technical point really, but if Soros was getting money from the drug cartels surely he wouldn’t be in favor of eliminating the profit margins associated with illegal drugs in America. More proof that Hastert’s a sad fool.”

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner.

And yeah slander is slander but what is heard will be remembered. It’s the modus operandi of the day. Lie and at a later date denounce the lies. But until that later date profit of the misperceptions the lies generated.

And wasn’t it folks in the “Heritage Foundation” who recently published a memo saying it would be better for america to legalize most drugs and regulate them much as we do cigaretttes and alcohal?

But on a more serious note. I met this bum downtown who states he used to have sex with Dennis Hasstert of Washington on a regular basis. Seems the speaker was into being ridden like a donkey.

“There’s been a lot of shit out there, but this really is a new low. There really appears to be no brake at all on the careening of the Republican political machine towards the abyss of expedient lies and immoral insinuations. This is the FUCKING Speaker of the House, for god’s sake. If it was Bob Dornan or some other fool off his meds, that would be one thing, but this is a person where the dignity of his office ought to mean something.”

Posted by Timothy Burke

Timothy, if there’s one thing that the GOP has learned in the past few decades, it would be that going lower is a good bet. The only real question is to do it oneself, ‘naked’, so to speak, or to use a ‘condom’ (like the Swifties).

Positive reinforcement. Combined with the fact that they lower the bar each time that they do it, so diminished expectations work for them.

What did Krugman say about ‘revolutionary’ powers? They aren’t trying to take a bigger share in the system, they’re trying to smash the system, and grab it all.

I don’t really know if George W Bush was ejected from a spaceship over Roswell New Mexico in 1947 and sequestered in Area 51 until he was ready to emerge as the Arcturian Candidate for President, but there are those who’ve suggested as much and I really think the President owes them an explanation.

If this was Britain, Soros would not be able to sue Hastert if he had spoken the words in Parliament: we would have “parliamentary privilege”, and could make shit up. Since he’s speaking on the news, he would be vulnerable for slander.

>We don’t know whether Mr. Hastert likes to have sex with little boys, or whether he likes black boys or latino boys in addition to white boys. We do know he enjoys watching boys roll around on the ground together, and used to give boys instructions as to how to cradle another boy in their arms.

All of whom, given Hastert’s present girth, would need to be paid for. Given that the salaries of congress people, he would have to supplement his income to support his habit. Shall we say, supplemented by devious dealings with a few people from Colombia?

>We don’t know whether Mr. Hastert likes to have sex with little boys, or whether he likes black boys or latino boys in addition to white boys. We do know he enjoys watching boys roll around on the ground together, and used to give boys instructions as to how to cradle another boy in their arms.

All of whom, given Hastert’s present girth, would need to be paid for. Given the salaries of congress people, it is likely that he would have to supplement his income in order to support his habit. Shall we say, supplemented by devious dealings with a few people from Colombia?

<quote>slander is slander but what is heard will be remembered. It’s the modus operandi of the day. Lie and at a later date denounce the lies. But until that later date profit of the misperceptions the lies generated.</quote>

As with the swifties, if you come out with a vigorous and remotely plausible lie, no one will be paying attention when it is demolished.

As with the swifties, if you come out with a vigorous and remotely plausible lie, no one will be paying attention when it is demolished.

Nope…we’re past that stage now. Lies can’t be “demolished” anymore, not in our brave new world of postmodern conservatism.

There’s no doubt that at least a few of those cretins sporting “purple heart bandages” on the floor of the Republican convention this week have read about the very thorough debunkings of the SBVT claims in major newspapers. They simply don’t care. The calumny suits their political purposes, it jibes with their general sense that “liberal” equals “immoral,” and they’re sticking with it. The fact that in the process they’re implicitly pissing all over one of their greatest sacred cows, the United States armed forces, doesn’t seem to occur to anyone.

Consider this: Richard Mellon Scaife is virtually unknown in this country. The Democrats dare not speak his name, and the only people attempting to expose and combat his political influence are wonky liberal intellectuals writing books that are read exclusively by other wonky liberal intellectuals. Soros, on the other hand, is the target of an emergent campaign of character assassination being carried out openly by the leading figures of the Republican party. What’s wrong with this picture?

On my way home from work last night I watched young, self-styled “anarchists” protesting the Republican convention being herded into paddy wagons on 42nd Street. I realize that as a Kerry supporter I’m supposed to be appalled by these “deluded” people and their “counterproductive” tactics. But as I watched, and thought about the absolute contempt that the Republican leadership is showing for even the most basic standards of decency, I began to think that maybe it’s we “mainstream” types who are really deluded. We’re still trying to play by the rules. Our opponents–clinging ever more bizarrely to the label of “conservatives”–are out for power by any means necessary.

And by the way, Josh Marshall reports that Hastert is reiterating his absolutely baseless slander of Soros at every opportunity.